Boom! This just happened.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nhusers/_NTLpl2R4_o
Looking forward to the next version of Fluent NHibernate to go with the new
NH.
--Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Fluent NHibernate" group.
To unsubscribe
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nhusers/D8SWOgXbfz0
Can anyone comment on the state of the Fluent NH project? Who are the
active contributors/committers? Will there be a new FNH release to
correspond to NH 4?
Thanks,
--Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
I'd be willing to help out with getting tests running against SQLite or
SqlCE. Let me know what you had in mind and if there are any other issues
to address to prepare for NH 4.0.
--Jeff
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:09:13 AM UTC-8, Gleb Chermennov wrote:
>
> Hello.
> I try to maintain the pro
I say it's time to let 3.5 pass on and more forward to 4.0/4.5.
On Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:15:53 PM UTC-8, Gleb Chermennov wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, fresh version of Fluent just hit NuGet.
> It's strictly a bugfix release, so please don't expect something glamorous.
> Sorry it's been so lon
Running on NH 3.2 is definitely high on my list. :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Fluent NHibernate" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fluent-nhibernate/-/d19ocDXvIBgJ.
To post to this group, send ema
I'm on board to help contribute/maintain and I'm curious to know who else
is out there. If there's enough community interest, I'm sure we could
start putting something together to keep this project fresh and moving
forward.
--Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to th
Agreed.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Fluent NHibernate" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/fluent-nhibernate/-/SzCCjbPpYoMJ.
To post to this group, send email to fluent-nhibernate@googlegroups.com.
To
Issue 396 - Posted
On Apr 20, 9:15 am, cliff vaughn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Jeff Doolittle
> wrote:
>
> > Tell me how and I'll get it done. I haven't submitted a bug for this
> > project before.
>
> > --Jeff
>
> >http://flue
Tell me how and I'll get it done. I haven't submitted a bug for this
project before.
--Jeff
On Apr 19, 12:16 pm, cliff vaughn wrote:
> so... have you filed this as a bug with a failing test?
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jeff Doolittle
> wrote:
>
&
adonly backing fields, I failed because it appeared impossible.
>
> Am I totally off my rocker here? :)
>
> Thanks for any information
> Mark Rogers
>
> On Apr 13, 2:20 pm, Jeff Doolittle wrote:
>
>
>
> > It works if you expose a public getter property that has a p
It works if you expose a public getter property that has a private
backing field.
Assuming an entity type
"Order"
with public property "public int Total { { return _total; } }"
with backing field "private int _total;"
You can do this:
AutoPersistenceModel.Override(map => map.References(x =>
x.
Sorry, submitted too soo. Let me clean that up a bit:
AutoMap.AssemblyOf()
.Setup(s =>
{
s.IsComponentType = t => t.Namespace == "Model.Components";
s.GetComponentColumnPrefix = type => type.Name + "_";
})
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Fl
I will typically put my component classes in a different namespace.
For example, I'll put my entities in a folder/namespace "Model" and my
components in a folder/namespace "Model.Components".
With this convention, it is easy to set up the fluent mappings to
treat components as components.
AutoMap
to get at the
> private property. That way your API remains free of a version member for
> other classes interacting with your class.
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Jeff Doolittle
> wrote:
>
> > I downloaded the latest build (614) and I was able to add a Version
> &
t version of FNH are you using? I have 1.0.0.594.
>
> Cheers
> Jon
>
> On 6 Jan, 22:14, Paul Batum wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that this is fixed. I'm using an automapped base
> > class with aVersionproperty and it works fine.
>
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010
Does anyone know if a fix for this if forthcoming?
--Jeff
On Nov 13 2009, 10:18 am, Billy wrote:
> I agree with Deeksy. The version property from a superclass was
> mapping automatically previously. Seems to require a manual mapping
> now or it gets completely ignored.
>
> Billy
>
> On Nov 5,
16 matches
Mail list logo
